Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest - Page 4 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest

   
I think the distinction is that strongly needing healing isn't bad.
But demanding someone always play a Cleric is.

Lemee be a healing Bard or Druid. Lemee use the First Aid skill to do quick patch jobs - without needed to have the guy rest for 8 hours! - with the feat improving that ability rather than allowing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonKnight View Post
I always felt that Martial, Arcane, Divine and Thief were the perfect adventuring group. I get the point that not everyone wants to be the healer, but it is an essential part of the group. At least to me.
I love nonstandard parties! There were a couple of good threads I recall back when the Wizards boards still existed - I remember being involved in a discussion about trumping class stereotypes (the Rogue can be the healer with UMD, the Cleric is clearly the Fighter, the Wizard uses spells to be a trap-buster, locksmith and skill-monkey - Summon Monster, Knock, etc - and the Fighter lays down battlefield control and status effects with reach, trip, etc) and also being directed to a cool thread about parties which simply didn't cover all the bases - what the challenges were, and how much fun they had.

The four-man party just feels a bit cliche to me, like the Five Man Gang or whatever. Does the Wizard have to be an androgynous elf, the Cleric a dwarf, the leader a straight white male, etc? Obviously, if you were going to rob a tomb you'd want to hire a trap specialist, but in real life teams don't always subscribe to 100% rigid specifications.

Also, in 3.5, why not just be Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Wizard? One of them can do melee and one of them can do traps and locks, if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonKnight View Post
Might be colored by a group I was in a long time ago, but why would someone be a fighter if they could be a paladin, get better abilities, and really not lose out on much. It's not overpowered in comparison with, say a wizard, but against another martial class? There's no competition.
Why indeed? Well, Paladins don't get better abilities than Fighters without losing out on much. They probably are stronger overall in 3.5/PF (especially PF, since Paizo's awesome Fighter buffs were along the lines of "+1 to saves vs fear", or 3.5 with some splats and stuff) but they're still kind of weak, it's just that the Fighter is even worse (though, even then, Fighters have loads of feats and several options which do compete with Paladins). If you instead compare with a Ranger, Barbarian, Magus(PF), ToB class(3.5), or basically any caster, the Paladin hardly looks overpowered.

Besides, saying, "the second-worst class is better than the worst, let's nerf it!" does not seem very sensible to me - you'd be better buffing the worst class and nerfing the actually good ones.

I'll give it a shot when it goes live. After playing a few 5e campaigns, I've found it difficult to go back to the relatively rules-heavy pathfinder system, though I began on it. If pf2.0 is more streamlined, I'll be happy to try again.

I agree, Blast. After really diving in and enjoying Pathfinder for a long while, I fear 5e has stolen me away with its simplicity. If PF 2.0 can do to 5e what 1.0 did for 3.5, I'll probably switch; if not, 5e it is.

thirded.... While I deplore somewhat the poor range of options and choices in D&D5, I simply don't have the concentrations powers to have the system mastery needed to properly build characters in PF anymore.

If PF2 does for 5e what PF1 does for 3rd then I'm not touching it.

I don't think PF1 improved meaningfully on 3rd and I don't know 5th (I might love it, but I suspect it's not quite for me, either) so a PF version of 5th doesn't really appeal. I know it will to a lot of people, but I'd like to see something more. Maybe I'm just not the target market.

I'm probably going to crack this back open and read the classes and stuff in a bit more detail, still; I've only really gotten to grips with a small part of it so far.

I don't quite agree with you Fred, some of PF's changes were good, I liked the reduction in skill number (truly hated the D&D3 sill point economics, so this was a definite improvement by me)... making the characters gain something as about every level also made the economics of single or multi classing more interesting, and the alternative favored class bonuses had some interest... I'll grant that I did not like everything, but I liked enough that if I launched a campaign again, it would be a mix of PF and D&D.

As for 5ed, it comes back to greatly simplified rules (especially when compared to 4ed that required HeroLab to run), with some new mechanisms that one may like or not.

PF isn't (in my opinion) entirely without its good things, but it feels that it mostly either failed to do what it aimed to do, or actively did silly things.

Characters gaining something every level is nice, but it's not the be-all and end-all (hell, the Monk and the Barbarian are prime 3.5 examples of getting something every level, but it doesn't make them the best or even the most fun classes). It did little to help multiclassing vs single-classing and anyway is vastly outweighed by PF's general hate of multiclassing and PrCs.

The skills system I actually dislike. The simplication makes it easier to use, yes, but the cost is that it's less nuanced and makes less sense (great eyesight = great hearing, etc). Their way of doing class skills kind of devalues them a lot, too (it's inherently "once a class skill, always a class skill" and anyway, it's just a +3). This is relevant to PF2 which appears to have progressed this even further along the same scale.

Favoured class bonuses are much more interesting than 3.5's old weird XP penalty rule, but they're also appallingly balanced and in some cases serve only to make certain race/class combos significantly better or worse than others.

There are a lot of other things that PF changed and a lot that it could/should have but didn't, but the point is that on the whole, I wasn't really sold on it, so I wouldn't expect to be sold on a PF-ified version of 5e either.

Actually, PF2 appears to have allowed them to be a little bit more creative in what they changed, so we're seeing a couple of interesting things like the crits. There's quite a lot which I don't really like the look of so far, though.

I think the original idea might have been more of a PF version of 5e, but it looks to me like they moved away from 5e quite a bit. They didn't really commit to capped accuracy, for example.

So... errata 1.2 came out. You can find it by logging in to the Paizo.com website and clicking the underlined bit, where it says Playtest files indicated in this list, then Download Rulebook Updates.

A brief discussion on the changes is here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs429hh?Errata-12-is-out#1




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status